Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 20.11.2023 passed by LD CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18.
The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “i. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee merely on the basis of written submission without any documentary evidence. ii. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) may be set- aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. iii. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any ground/grounds, which may be necessary.”
3. When the appeal was called for hearing NONE appeared on behalf of the assessee but a paperbook was filed by the assessee which is available on record. We find that the matter was also listed previously on two occasions but on those dates also, NONE appeared. Under these circumstances, we deem it proper to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record & after hearing the appellant revenue.
4. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of mobile recharge reseller filed his return of income on 29.03.2018 declaring income of Rs.6,34,770/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS under limited category to examine the substantial cash deposit in bank account during the year. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was found by the AO that the assessee has deposited Rs.57,10,000/- in the Bank of India, Account No. 60137876984 during the demonetization period. Notices u/s 143(1) and 142(1)
IT Act were issued along with questionnaire. In absence of any explanation, the AO treated it as unexplained money u/s 69A and added Rs.57,10,000/- to the income of the assessee. Other cash deposit of Rs.3,42,59,902/- was treated as related to business income and net profit @ 10% was determined. Accordingly, the AO passed the assessment order u/s 144 of the IT Act vide order dated 12.12.2019 determining taxable income of Rs.91,29,530/- of which Rs.57,10,000/- was added u/s 69A of the IT Act.
Being aggrieved with the above ex-parte assessment order, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, who vide impugned order allowed the appeal of the assessee on the basis of statement of facts and grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee before him.
6. Being aggrieved with the decision of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal.
7. LD DR submitted before us that LD CIT(A)/NFAC committed grave error in allowing the appeal of the assessee, merely on the basis of written submission & also in the absence of any supporting evidence / documents. It was further submitted that LD CIT(A)/NFAC & only on the basis of statements of facts & grounds of appeal the appeal was decided in favour of the assessee. It was also submitted before the bench that to verify the cash deposited during demonetization period a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) was prescribed which was also not followed by LD CIT(A)/NFAC. It was therefore contended before the bench that in the interest of revenue the order passed by LD CIT(A)/NFAC may kindly be set-aside & that of the Assessing Officer be restored.
8. We have heard LD DR representing the Revenue & perused the material available on record, including the paper book filed by the assessee. We find that the paperbook furnished by respondent assessee is consisting of computation of income with ITR V of relevant period under consideration, various bank statements & distributorship agreements with the IDEA Company & the death certificate of erstwhile tax consultant of the assessee. We also find that the assessment order was passed ex-parte & therefore obviously these documents were not filed before the Assessing